Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Immaterial spirit? The church father Tertullian didn't believe that nonsense. He believed that God is physical.God is described as uncreated, a spirit
Empty fluff. Your (oxymoronic) notion of atemporal conversation fails of any coherence and is therefore sheer assertion contrary to reason. An event that took place for less than one moment of time never happened. Period. THAT is what we, as humans, understand. Deny it all you want - you're not making any sense.You are confusing eternality with intimacy and emotional experience, and experience in general.
No it's not. A theologian who regards God as incomprehensible should remain forever silent about Him, since it is a patent contradiction to make positive assertions about something we do not understand.And what is more, you are suggesting that what is incomprehensible is invalid, however, the inscrutable nature of God is attested to in Scripture.
Matter is a temporal reality, and Plato is the founder of immaterialism. Ultimately it is his influence that led to the concept of an immaterial reality existing outside of time. Here's a commentary on Plato's forms by the way:However, I have not read anywhere that Plato suggested God existed outside of time...
That's an interpretation, not a fact. Creation does not necessarily mean ex nihilo....and as I stated in the preceding paragraph, I arrived at this conclusion independently, based on John 1. When it states that by Christ all things were made, since spacetime is a thing, quite obviously, I accept that as fact.
Of course not. But preachers should be honest in the pulpit. Admit that immaterialism came from Plato, not from Scripture.That being said, just because Plato or someone else you dislike...says something, it does not mean they are automatically wrong.
That's one possible interpretation, but not mine.Regarding the materiality or immateriality of God, since God created all matter...
He is the material-immaterial God?....it follows that logically, God is material through the Incarnation of the Word.
That's one interpretation. Not mine. No one can withstand the Father in the absolute fullness of the (physical) divine Light but anyone can safely behold a shaded view.Before that time, before we met Jesus Christ, although it is obvious there were physical interactions with God, these were clearly with either our Lord or the Holy Spirit, and not the Father, who has only ever been heard.
As Augustine noted, these are all material forms. Anything immaterial is rooted in Platonism, not in Scripture.In the case of the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament He is seen in the form of a dove and as tongues of fire, so it seems reasonable that the fire which burned but did not consume (it is very much alive and in the courtyard of the Monastery of St. Catharine in Sinai) the bush where Moses encountered God was the Holy Spirit, and likewise the Pillar of Fire, while other Theophanies in the Old Testament point to our Lord.
Sheer assertion.If Tertullian actually believed that, it was in error,
Funny you admonish me for ad hominem arguments but seem to stoop here to a quite-similar guilt-by-association tactic: Tertullian's Montanism is false, therefore his immaterialism is false?...and, while some of his contributions were valued and accepted by the early church, Tertullian did become a Montanist heretic, because he believed that Montanus, a man, was the Paraclete (and if what you are saying is accurate, he may have thought Montanus to be the Holy Spirit, which is…sad). Note this is not an appeal to authority but rather a rejection of an appeal against unqualified authority, since there is some reason, as I just stated, to consider that you might be reading Montanist-influenced doctrines of Tertullian, which were rejected by the Early Church for very good reasons.
An event that took place for less than one moment of time never happened. Period.
Funny you admonish me for ad hominem arguments but seem to stoop here to a quite-similar guilt-by-association tactic: Tertullian's Montanism is false, therefore his immaterialism is false?
Oh by the way - regardless of whatever Paraclete-heresy he fell into during later years, Phillip Schaff rated Tertullian as one of the two best defenders of mainstream theology. As I recall, Schaff even considered him an important contributor to the rise of Trinitarianism. He's the first theologian known to use the word Trinity, after all.
That's an interpretation, not a fact. Creation does not necessarily mean ex nihilo.
Matter is a temporal reality, and Plato is the founder of immaterialism. Ultimately it is his influence that led to the concept of an immaterial reality existing outside of time. Here's a commentary on Plato's forms by the way:
"In addition to being aspatial, forms are also atemporal. They did not come into existence at a particular time and indeed the realm of forms does not have any particular relationship to time."
Of course not. But preachers should be honest in the pulpit. Admit that immaterialism came from Plato, not from Scripture.
To get home I'd catch a bus or tram. Brisbane had trams in those days, and the last tram ran in April 1969.
That's like saying He can make 2 +2 = 5 just because He is the omnipotent God. Sorry, if a claim is incoherent to the human mind, such as atemporal conversation, it doesn't count as a real doctrine. Omnipotence isn't the ability to reify the incoherent.Actually we have established that the smallest unit of time is the Planck time, which is 10 -43 seconds, scarcely a moment, but even that fails to account for certain conditions that can arise with subatomic particles in which it becomes impossible to say exactly when an event occurred, due to the impossibility of knowing both the momentum and position of a particle with perfect accuracy (wave-particle duality). But all of this is irrelevant in the case of God, who is uniquely omnipotent and, having created time, can do whatever he wants at any time and in all times without restriction.
Matter is all we know for sure - and it is the only reality clearly supported in Scripture. "Use the immaterial Force, Luke!" Any notion of immateriality is NOT something we know for sure, it therefore shifts the burden of proof entirely upon those proposing this apparent fairy-tale. Immaterialism is an extraordinary claim and, as such, calls for extraordinary amounts of corroborating evidence. There is no hard evidence for it. Just Greek philosophy.Appeals to authority are fallacious when the authority is unqualified, which when it comes to Tertullian, is very possibly the case with respects to whether or not God is a spiritual being, given that he thought the Paraclete, which we know to be the Holy Spirit, was Montanus, a man.
Misleading? Because you are reading the text through the lens of theologians indoctrinated into Plato's immaterialism for 2,000 years. Which erroneous view of God explains why the church can't explain something as simple as the Incarnation after 2,000 years. Or regeneration. Or resolve the Problem of Evil in a THOROUGH and CONVINCING manner. All they can do is speak of incoherent concepts such as creation out of nothing.Creation ex nihlo is the doctrine of the Christian church. And there is a good reason for it: logically, if God did not create the universe from nothing, then whatever preceded His creation would have a claim on godhood. And also the text of the Gospel of John would be at best, misleading, and at worst, false.
So? What difference does that make? There is only one possible authority, ultimately, in ANYONE's life including God: the rule of conscience. Since Yahweh designed our conscience to recognize Him alone as God, we are stuck with that belief and obligation. YOU are addressing a PHILOSOPHICAL concern, namely, "In my ideal concept of God, He alone should have claim to a unique kind of uniqueness". In MY understanding of Yahweh, He is preoccupied with more PRACTICAL concerns. You can read my definition of Yahweh here.Creation ex nihlo is the doctrine of the Christian church. And there is a good reason for it: logically, if God did not create the universe from nothing, then whatever preceded His creation would have a claim on godhood.
This is immaterial bias. You seem to be saying that:In the case of time, however, we know that God created it, because spacetime either exists or it does not exist. There is no intermediate state of completion wherein God could bring order to some partially extant spacetime and transform it into the fully functional reality of spacetime we now enjoy, because if we get down into the weeds of the science of spacetime it becomes evident that such an act would effectively constitute creating it.
No it does not. Immaterialism originated in Plato. I'd be surprised if you could fine a Philsophy 101 course that attributes the origin of immaterialism to the Bible (unless it is a course designed by biased Christians).Since Scripture talks about spiritual beings...
Theologians who thought they were smarter than the Bible try to stuff Plato's immaterial spirit into the text. Except where such an effort would fail miserably such as Ex 15:8-10 where the Third Person is clearly identified as the divine Wind/Breath - a physical person. Did you read my post on Wind/Breath?You yourself previously stated you believe there is an intentional mistranslation in something based on Platonic influence...
Of course not....are you suggesting that Scripture, including the Greek manuscripts we have of the New Testament, are unreliable?
That's like saying He can make 2 +2 = 5 just because He is the omnipotent God.
Sorry, if a claim is incoherent to the human mind, such as atemporal conversation, it doesn't count as a real doctrine. Omnipotence isn't the ability to reify the incoherent.
The Father SHAPED the Son at a particular point in time, in my view. Problem solved.
No it's not. You keep basing a seemingly oxymoronic postulation of "atemporal consciousness" on divine omnipotence. As if to argue that God can do ANYTHING regardless of logical coherence. It's not a strawman to create an analogy illustrating the non-sequitur status of that argumentation.Forgive me, but that is a strawman argument and I am not prepared to entertain such arguments.
Sheer assertion. It is well known that Hebrews and Greeks can - and have -used the term "create" for creation out of existing material.However, the text of scripture does clearly say that God created all things and is eternal, so we can assert that to be doctrine.
That's one possible interpretation, not a necessary one.I also maintain that the position I share with CS Lewis, in addition to being in no respects founded on Platonic philosophy, is one that is strongly indicated by our Lord saying “Before Abraham was, I AM,” and other quotes which indicate that God’s experience of time is not synchronous with the human experience of time, but rather transcends it.
You are confusing qualitative with quantitative. I cannot quantitatively appreciate/understand God's love, power, etc. But I do know what power is. I do know what love is. The same is true when I say I understand what a computer is - a flow of electricity among circuits. Qualitatively I understand it just fine - I just don't have memorized every circuit on the motherboard. If we cannot qualitatively understand God - if He is transcendent in THAT sense - we have no hope. For example is His love is a deviation from MY definition of love (kindness), heaven will in fact be hellish.Finally, in response to this paragraph, I would note that whether or not you find a claim incoherent is irrelevant with respect to the nature of God. Scripture affirms that God is utterly transcendent and beyond the limits of human comprehension, and inscrutable in His ways. We do not need to understand the mystery that is the Divine Essence of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in order to offer Him worship as our Creator and Savior.
That's precisely what I repudiated. Read my post again.Forgive me, but I am compelled to point out that if, in asserting that, you are claiming there was a time when the Son was not, you are literally professing a belief in Arianism per se, because Arianism is defined by a belief that the Son is not coequal and coeternal with the Father, begotten of the Father before all ages.
Any text presumed to convey immateriality. 99% of the time, this means any text where the translators are using the English word "spirit" as opposed to the correct translation (physical) wind/breath. Again, did you read my post on Wind/Breath, linked to from another thread?Also at this time I am compelled to ask you before discussing this matter any further what texts you feel were mistranslated or otherwise corrupted under Platonic influence?
That's precisely what I repudiated. Read my post again.
Before all ages? I define God as a temporal being who exists only within time. His first motion/thought initiates time (because time is properly defined as a count of motions). Anyway His physical mind/substance/consciousness did not COME into existence, ex nihilo, hence the Son has always existed. The begetting was simply a re-shaping of what was already there.So to be clear, you affirm there is never a time when the Son was not, and that the Son is begotten and not made, before all ages?
Forgive me, but I am compelled to clarify this point before discussing this any further.
Before all ages?
I define God as a temporal being who exists only within time. His first motion/thought initiates time (because time is properly defined as a count of motions). Anyway His physical mind/substance/consciousness did not COME into existence, ex nihilo, hence the Son has always existed. The begetting was simply a re-shaping of what was already there.
Again, Jesus created all things. There is no created thing, except what He fashioned/formed/created.The Nicene Creed variously reads “Begotten of the Father before all ages” or “Begotten of the Father before all worlds” but the meaning is the same, in both cases referring to John 1:1-18. The question is, do you agree with it?
Time doesn't even exist in my view. There's no existing river of time passing by, into which I can dip my feet. The word "time" is just a convenient term for counting consecutive motions. What's real is matter in motion. When the minutes hand of a clock, for example, has motioned 60 times around, we conveniently say, "An hour has passed."The problem with such a definition is that it makes time the actual God....
You seem to be stooping to the level of random accusations that do not make any clear sense. Looks pretty desperate to me.The problem with such a definition is that it makes time the actual God....
It precludes the incoherent description of a reality as a non-specific number named "infinite"....precludes divine omnipotence
Sheer assertion. That's one interpretation. William Lane Craig, for example, admitted that there is NOTHING in Scripture insisting on atemporality. It's merely a philosophical assertion arguably consistent with Scripture but certainly not based on Scripture, he said.....and disagrees with Sacred Scripture on the nature of God. The Holy Bible makes the following declarations about God which your definition is incompatible with....God is eternal, which literally means the opposite of temporal
Newton invented the theory of gravity - and didn't believe his own theory! He never took it literally despite how well it worked in applied science. He said you'd have to be naive to take it literally. Similarly, you have opted to take Einstein's conclusions literally. I literally laughed when I read your words. This is not to be disrespectful but merely to awaken you to the fact that sometimes we are so indoctrinated that we cannot see the forest for the trees. You HONESTLY believe in things like:
- God created all things, and we know from General Relativity that spacetime actually is a thing, not merely a count of motions, or to be more scientific, the transition of a system from minimum to maximum entropy. This is because of time dilation (the impact of massive objects and relativistic velocities on the curvature of time)
No it does not. For the third time, did you read my post on Wind/Breath? Why do you keep deflecting this question.Scripture does also literally assert God is a spirit, so there is that problem as well.
Random accusations that do not make any clear sense. You don't even have ANY clear, coherent concept of begetting. At least I provided one. What is your claim here? That God cannot shape-shift?Additionally, your suggestion that the begetting of the Son was a re-shaping of something pre-existent contradicts John 1:1, which states In the Beginning was the Word (the Son) and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Random, baseless accusations. Fine. Show me where I contradicted John 1:3. Specify one created object that, in my view, Jesus did not create.Finally, your entire proposition does contradict John 1:3, as I have stated numerous times.
The title Holy Spirit is easily shown to be a linguistically incoherent translation. Suppose I introduced you to a husband, wife, and child with this description, “This is the father, the son, and The Human Being.” That’s a ridiculous statement because all three are human beings. Mainstream Christianity regards each member of the Trinity as both spirit and holy. Thus the term "Holy Spirit," in mainstream thinking, could actually serve as an appropriate title for each of them. Hence the phrase “The Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit” is just as ludicrous as a human family captioned with, "The father, the son, and The Human Being." Within a family or organization, the main purpose of a title is to provide a clear distinction between the members. The Human Being fails of that goal, as does The Holy Spirit. Whereas my metaphysics creates a threefold distinction:Scripture does also literally assert God is a spirit,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?